MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067454449 · doi:10.1177/0002764209331532

Untangling the Roots of Tolerance

2009· article· en· W2067454449 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Behavioral Scientist · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Capital and Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssociation (psychology)Voluntary associationTurnoverSocial psychologyPsychologyPolitical scienceEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Past research suggests that tolerance flows from personal characteristics, diversified networks, and participation in voluntary associations. Earlier studies have never included all of these, so researchers have not explored alternative theoretical accounts of how possible causes of tolerance connect to each other and to tolerance. For example, do association members have more tolerance because association activities meet the conditions of the contact hypothesis,because members are well educated, or because association activity widens one's networks? Furthermore, both associations and social networks vary in the extent to which they provide the experiences theoretically linked to tolerance, so types of associations and types of networks should also have different effects on tolerance. Exploring these and other variations provides an enriched test of theoretical conjectures. Findings from analyses of the 2000 Canadian federal election study show that tolerance is complex, stemming from a combination of social networks, voluntary association activities, and individual attributes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it